Search

Background Congenital anomalies (CAs) increase the risk of death during infancy and childhood. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of using death certificates to estimate the burden of CAs on mortality for children under 10 years old.Methods Children born alive with a major CA between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2014, from 13 population-based European CA registries were linked to mortality records up to their 10th birthday or 31 December 2015, whichever was earlier.Results In total 4199 neonatal, 2100 postneonatal and 1087 deaths in children aged 1–9 years were reported. The underlying cause of death was a CA in 71% (95% CI 64% to 78%) of neonatal and 68% (95% CI 61% to 74%) of postneonatal infant deaths. For neonatal deaths the proportions varied by registry from 45% to 89% and by anomaly from 53% for Down syndrome to 94% for tetralogy of Fallot. In children aged 1–9, 49% (95% CI 42% to 57%) were attributed to a CA. Comparing mortality in children with anomalies to population mortality predicts that over 90% of all deaths at all ages are attributable to the anomalies. The specific CA was often not reported on the death certificate, even for lethal anomalies such as trisomy 13 (only 80% included the code for trisomy 13).Conclusions Data on the underlying cause of death from death certificates alone are not sufficient to evaluate the burden of CAs on infant and childhood mortality across countries and over time. Linked data from CA registries and death certificates are necessary for obtaining accurate estimates.

Background: Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies. Methods: We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland). We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate’s Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master’s level degree. Results: In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans. Conclusion: To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Introduction Congenital anomalies (CAs) are a major cause of infant mortality, childhood morbidity and long-term disability. Over 130 000 children born in Europe every year will have a CA. This paper describes the EUROlinkCAT study, which is investigating the health and educational outcomes of children with CAs for the first 10 years of their lives.Methods and analysis EUROCAT is a European network of population-based registries for the epidemiological surveillance of CAs. EUROlinkCAT is using the EUROCAT infrastructure to support 22 EUROCAT registries in 14 countries to link their data on births with CAs to mortality, hospital discharge, prescription and educational databases. Once linked, each registry transforms their case data into a common data model (CDM) format and they are then supplied with common STATA syntax scripts to analyse their data. The resulting aggregate tables and analysis results are submitted to a central results repository (CRR) and meta-analyses are performed to summarise the results across all registries. The CRR currently contains data on 155 594 children with a CA followed up to age 10 from a population of 6 million births from 1995 to 2014.Ethics The CA registries have the required ethics permissions for routine surveillance and transmission of anonymised data to the EUROCAT central database. Each registry is responsible for applying for and obtaining additional ethics and other permissions required for their participation in EUROlinkCAT.Dissemination The CDM and associated documentation, including linkage and standardisation procedures, will be available post-EUROlinkCAT thus facilitating future local, national and European-level analyses to improve healthcare. Recommendations to improve the accuracy of routinely collected data will be made.Findings will provide evidence to inform parents, health professionals, public health authorities and national treatment guidelines to optimise diagnosis, prevention and treatment for these children with a view to reducing health inequalities in Europe.

Background: Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies. Methods: We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland). We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate’s Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master’s level degree. Results: In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans. Conclusion: To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.